OT: (Jay) Paterno explains Alabama's success

Jay Paterno provides his take on why Alabama has experienced such a run of success over the past 4-5 years. I'm not sure I disagree with any of his points although he never brings up the spector of oversigning. I did think it was LOL that credit for Bama playing in the NC this year is credited in part to Jim Delany and Gene Smith.

I think there might be some truth to # of plays and fatigue issues and injury prevention. Obviously, if Team A is running 20 more plays per game than Team B, there are more opportunities for Team A players to be injured.

"[The University of Michigan] was, in short, the testing ground for all my prejudices, my beliefs and my ignorance, and it helped to lay out the boundaries of my life."--Arthur Miller

I disagree with his point about a relatively low number of plays. Alabama is the most talented team on the field in nearly every game they play, usually by a fairly wide margin. The more plays run, means the more opportunities for that talent advantage to manifest itself on the scoreboard. As more plays are run, there is a decrease in the likelihood that a fluke occurence will dictate the end result in the game. A good example of an underdog attempting to use this to their advantage is the strategy Nebraska recently used against our basketball team.

I agree, and I think there is a point of diminishing returns where each additional play increases the risk of injury by more than it help decrease variance. This depends on how deep a team is at any given position. For example, with how thin our offensive line was this year, almost any injury was devastating, so running those extra plays was probably not worth it. However, in a few years (given the way we have been stockpiling o-lineman), that point of diminishing return will likely move. Obviously this applies to the depth at every position, offensive line was just my example here.

This is exactly the argument given on how inferior teams were able to beat Lloyd Carr teams (e.g. App State, Minnesota, or even teams that kept it close like Ball State). So according to Jay Paterno, it's the opposite? This is dumb. Who am I to believe now? I think if you really look at the statistics, it favors the former argument and NOT Paterno's.

1. Plays. Alabama plays a deliberate ball-control offense, keeping the number of plays low. More games are lost by mistakes than are won by great plays. Less plays means less chances for errors and less fatigue on the bodies over a year. Alabama ran 898 offensive plays and defended 837. Those 1,735 total plays are more than 300 fewer than Oregon ran (in one less game). Alabama’s defense averaged less than 60 plays per game, Oregon’s almost 76. For the past four seasons Alabama’s defense has been on the field for less than 60 plays a game. Guess who led the nation in total defense and hoisted the crystal football — again?

This is so absolutely asinine and against reality it's absurd. The better team should want more possessions, not fewer, in order to reduce variance. How often does an inferior team win or tie the first half then get blown out in the second? How often does the reverse happen? Exactly.

I do agree that on a game-by-game basis, a vastly more talented team like Bama would want more possessions and agree with your comparison to Nebraska's strategy the other night in basketball.

But I think there might be some validity to fatigue over the course of the year...especially in a sport as physically demanding as football (which is much more physically demanding than basketball because of the punishment the body takes).

"[The University of Michigan] was, in short, the testing ground for all my prejudices, my beliefs and my ignorance, and it helped to lay out the boundaries of my life."--Arthur Miller

Maybe against teams like Wofford and South Alabama it would be beneficial for 'Bama to run more plays to reduce variance but against similarly talented teams like Georgia, LSU, etc the grind it out style works. Nothing is worse for your defense than to have a three and out with 3 straight incompletions.

When you have thoroughbreads you let them run. You don't enter them into the steeplechase even if it is flashier.

While statistical analysis says that you want more plays to reduce variance, this is an absolutely ridiculous argument when it comes to football. You want your defense on the field for as few plays as possible, and a ball control offense helps with that.

Also, you want to play a style of football that minimizes the risks you take on each play, as turnovers and mistakes are often the reason for upsets. 'Bama does all that.

So bring up stats if you want to; as usual, academic theory fails to produce results in the real world. You simply can't argue with 'Bama's success.

Alabama also has a more talent than most teams. It's hard to say which theory is better because teams are not equal. I agree that it's hard to argue with Bama's success, but it's hard to argue with Oregon's success too, and they don't recruit nearly as well as the Tide.

I would agree with you if the lightening fast teams were winning NC's every year -- but, they're not. Teams went to that offense, historically, because they couldn't compete with the huge ball control teams, so they tried to dance around them. It's worked, to an extent. But, look at the drives that Bama rolled off against ND -- 80+ after 80+. When those drives end in TD's, the other defense is sucking wind and totally demoralized. Now, the same can be said for the lightening teams. But, the fast teams have a hard time playing field position, and if their offense stalls, they can actually gas their own defense.

Yes it's nice to score quickly. But, there is nothing like a run dominated 12 play 80 yard drive for a TD for asserting your will on an opponent. I am not saying the lightening offense isn't valid or good. I am saying your point is, ironically, the one that is asinine -- sorry to say.

Sing to the colors that float in the light;
Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue!

You misread my comment. I said more POSSESSIONS, not more plays. I made no statement on running lightning fast offense vs what Bama does. Obviously [one of] the best outcome(s) is 12play TD drives and then getting 3 and outs on defense.

Who here wouldn't prefer if The Horror was a 65 minute game for more possessions? Right, that's everyone. That's my point, it has nothing to do wtih lightning offense or not.

I agree with most everything he wrote. While the "sexy" spread offense continues to dominate as college football's trend, blocking and tackling are still winning national championships. It's worth noting that both ND and 'Bama run a lot of power running plays and are built around strong defenses.

I'm certainly not implying that spread offenses don't work or can't work, but the fact is that the game still (and will always) comes down to fundamentals, and while a system can mask flaws, it can't hide them from elite competition.

The good news is that all signs point to Hoke building a program that is similar to 'Bama: strong defense is the focal point, and constructing a monster O-line is the key on that side of the ball. This opens up the deep pass--something Borges has demonstrated that he is not afraid to use (once DG was in the game)--and forces the defense to pick its poison.

I can't wait to see Michigan grow into a juggernaught. I strongly believe we'll be better than we've been in 50 years (as a program; obviously '97 was an amazing year) by 2015.

I think he missed the point that Alabama's schedule spreads the non-conference cupcakes throughout the season to break up the conference gauntlet. Besides Michigan in week 1, Bama played W. Kentucky in week 2, Florida Atlantic in week 4 (after an SEC game), and Western Carolina in week 11. Another sign that the SEC conference "gets it" and will help their teams be successful as opposed to the B1G spending all their time and resources coming up with logos and division names.

“I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.”

I've never understood how oversigning isn't discussed regularly by the media or coaches when talking about SEC success. It's like there is an unwritten rule that an entire conference is allowed a significant leg up, yet nobody can talk about it as a factor in its dominance. I think Bama would still be a an elite team without oversigning, but the obvious gap would be reduced significantly.

Sing to the colors that float in the light;
Hurrah for the Yellow and Blue!

And Alabama is it right now. They don't want to change or shed negative light on something they can fawn all over. ESPN pays big money to broadcast SEC teams. The success becomes mutual. All about money. The legitimate fans can't stand guys like Brent Musberger because he makes such outrageous remarks about players and teams. But not all game watchers are real fans or knowledgable about what they see. So they think what ESPN and the play by play guys say is the gospel. Notre Dame has been a darling for years even though they have been totally out of prominence for 20 years until this year. It's the media way, like it or not.

I'm going to repeat what one of the commenters said; "Having 135 Scholarship recruits over the past 5 years doesn't hurt."

Plus he says Alabama's offense is more explosive than Oregon's, despite Oregon's #5 ranking. Yeah, by a whopping three tenths of a yard. Then there's the whole manball v. the spread thing that has been beaten to death, which by the way, didn't you run the so called "Spread HD" with Robinson and Clark as your QB's? And nevermind the fact that you poached a QB from Michigan that was recruited to play in the spread (How did that work out BTW?).

I think too much is being said about scheme in football and not the coaching up of players, and game time preparartion which he and his staff quite frankly, are masterful at.

Lastly, it seems that in the midst of all the slobbering Alabama is receiving because of their success as of late, people are forgetting that they do in fact have two championship seasons in which they have one loss; much to the chagrin of other teams with one loss that could have made a case for a MNC berth.

"It's the only place to get the inside story on Wolverine football, so blee bluhh tahh!" - Bo

1. recruiting top talent at every position (however it is the SEC does it)

2. developing top high school talent into NFL talent (effective coaching)

3. playing great (low risk) defense (focusing on taking away the run and letting their skilled backfield minimize big passing plays without a lot of blitzing)

4. having a simple, yet meticulous and effective, (low risk) offense. (Focusing on establishing the run to control the clock, wear down the opposing defense, and set up the passing game)

There's nothing fancy or sexy about Alabama football, except they win all the time. Oregon is the fancy and flashy team, yet in Bowl games they're 2-2 under Chip Kelly. They were handled by both OSU and Auburn, then they only just beat Wisconsin in a shootout, and handled an inferior KState. They play with a ton of risk, and leave many things to chance, don't play great defense, and give opponents plenty of possesions. Alabama is almost the opposite of Oregon, but the results speak for themselves.

The game was tied and Auburn kicked a game wining field goal from the 2 yard line. I remember because i had big bucks on Oregon covering a 3 point spread and I got a push. I thought for sure Auburn would have had Cam Newton sneak (fall forward he is 6'6") it in for a TD.

None of this works if Alabama doesn't cheat to amass the most impressive group of personnel in college football. None of it works if they aren't automatically ranked the highest in the group of teams that has its number of losses.

Jay's analysis makes it painfully obvious why he his coaching career never took off, despite having some of the greatest connections in the business.

for their success (and LSU, FLA, UGA) over the last 7 years. Alabama, though, is dominating because they sign a top 5 class every year and simply have ridiculous talent.

However, Jay Paterno composed one of the least insightful memos conceivable. It reads like a blog from a sophomore in college rather than an experienced coach from a major program. They're great because they Stop the Run and because They Run the Ball? Tripe and trite.

If this rambling mess represents his "thinking on how to build a great program", then no one should hire him. Utter dribble.

Saran is a great coach. He regularly turns four and five star recruits into All-SEC, All-American, and NFL players. Yes, it helps to have more scholarship talent on hand, but we all know how many top recruits don't get there. Saban's do, year-in and year-out.

He has assembled a top staff as well, and his defensive schemes are flexible and sound. Not revolutionary or earth-shattering, but he knows how to counter what you're doing with minimal risk, and his players are prepared for their tasks.

Slimy or not, oversigning or not ... The. Man. Can. Coach. Why is this so difficult for us to understand?

I believe that manball or the spread can work with the right personnel. Paterno seems to be saying that only a run-focused pro style system can will national championships. As I recall, Urban Meyer won 2 national championships at Florida running a spread.

It seems to me that there's no question that the spread can be successful. Meyer, Chip Kelly, and Mike Leach have proven that.

A more interesting question is whether offensive style affects recruiting. In other words, are there elite receivers, running backs etc. who favor pro style over spread in their college choice to maximize their NFL prospects.